to normal but help is on the way. they are not truly alone. that this country and that the senate and that this government is here for them at a time have dire need. there is much we still don't know and it is keeping us apart. and then we will waive from a distance. the only thing we know for sure is to summon the same spirit that saw previous generations through america's darkest hours. fortitude and resilience is what it means to be an american. with that spirit to face war

and depression and fear itself. once again america will prevail mr. graham: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from south carolina. mr. graham: thank you very much. much. >> thank you very much i want to complement my colleagues today getting briefed about the beer is at me like a ton of bricks i know there's a lot of good things in their money for healthe' care providers there is so many good things the country is under siege and one of the d first republicans to join my democratic colleagues and senator durbin we need to do something more

with unemployment insurance because the collins rubio construct will help but never in my wildest dreams did i believe that what we have done is to pay people more not to work than to work under this bill the 600-dollar payment on top of state benefits actually allows people to have an income almost double in certain circumstances. i want to help people that if you lose your job we cover your wages but you get $23.15 an hour on a 40 hour work week not to work and if you try to hire somebody in south carolina the next four months you have to compete with that wage if you are working at a restaurantng not now been anywhere $15 an hour somebody makes $23 an hour and you are working. that's just not fair.

it will help her to the rubioau collins construct. we want them to be able to borrow money and pay the payroll and key people connected so now what you do when you make $23 an hour on unemployment you made it a nightmare for small businesses competing against their own employees so the reason we're doing this for theeason we're unemployment commissions at the state level to figure this out to get unemployment tell us between the actual wages and stop there we don't do that under this bill. people are getting paid more not to work than they were in the workforce it will be hard

not to incentivize people to lose their jobs you can be unemployed at $23 an hour in south carolina that's more than what people think so i am urging my colleagues we need to fix this now no matter how well intentioned you will make it impossible and i can promise if you pay somebody $23 an hour not to work they will find a way to get there rather than staying in the workforce were i'm sure they would rather be we have created a perverse incentive not to help the unemployed yirson but to destroy to say employed so with that i say to my colleagues thank you to bring common sense back to the h body this bill does help a lot of people that we have created pandora's box wish we could

fix it tonight and if not then keep trying. >> this bill as it is written now and on government assistance from regular job the unemployment insurance program is the best and with the higher than the salary we cannot people pay more per hour not to work it is basic common sense most people choose a bigger paycheck i don't blame them at all. no person who knows anything about business that has an

incentive to be unemployed for the next four months the economy cannot reopen. if it reopens or is closed for more months we will be in a very deep recession. how do i know all this? because the public housing my mom worked three jobs i know what it's like to skip christmas in of the family car repossessed at the other end of the spectrum i have ran businesses with great success that's exactly how i know these things not conjecture itthere are many good things in this bill that i wholeheartedly disagree with that the worst thing we can do right now is create a disincentive to work we cannot ilcover from this we can get

it up and running again it will take a lot longer if we amend the bill to reverse these incentives. i yield the floor. >> thank you mr. president. i want to be abundantly clear for this legislation tonight i want to fix it first the amendment is very simple but first it is our responsibility to take care of the american people. i want to provide 100 percent of the salary while american is laid off because of covid-19. 100 percent of the salary laid off because of covid-19. the right way is you keep your income as if you are still working because you been laid

off because of covid-19 not a raise for not working not a percentage of your income to file unemployment the bill is simply'r to keep you whole while you are unemployed because of covid-19. i cannot stress enough is a former employer and frankly is a former employee the relationship between the employer employee is critical. our mission is built on the dignity of work. what this bill does without fixing it is to simply say you can earn more money by being on unemployment then you can while working. that is an incentive. that is perverse we do not intend to encourage people not to work and make more money

than to go back to work and receive normal pay. with that i yield. >> mr. president as senator scott just said this is really simple all we are trying to say is we should help everyone without accidentally creating a disincentive to work not for anybody in the country or the country as a whole we have to unprecedented crisis we have a crisis and an economic crisis and we don't know how long the valley of this recession will be but i want to make sure every american watching tonight understands exactly what this debate has been about this afternoon. this debate isrn how you can be pro- worker and kind and

charitable and also simultaneously affirming the ongoing dignity of work and the necessity of work as our country rebuilds our economy. nobody here is arguing if we should help workers. everybody on both sides of the w aisle wants to help workers. this is a debate whether or not we will letter poorly drafted bill not the nation harder in the coming months to unintentionally increasing unemployment. right now is the coronavirus takes the economy we know who the real heroes are not politicians a lot of people have been working all night that the heroes that will be the virus and rebuild america are not politicians but the men and women who stock the shelve shelves, pick up trash, drive trucks delivering

take out converting restaurants and to take out restaurants and putting food on the table for theirhe neighbors. americans are keeping pharmacies open daycare workers to watch other er doctors kids. those are the heroes the americans a across all 50 states across every village in tasuburban and the ordinary jobs under extraordinarily painful circumstances they are the heroes and the doers and we them and celebrating affirming them once we get to the crisis to get back to work. this bill has lots of good stuff and i intend to support it as well but there are pieces of the bill that areca broken that we can fix tonight but if we don't it will exacerbate then problem will be back in a month trying to fix these problems. these are the americans who will get us through and keep

the supply chain alive and that is the lifeline for lots of americans it threatens to cripple the supply chain for many different categories of workers some with food prep and food delivery it has a perverse incentive for those who are sidelined and those who come back to work for many employers who should want to maintain the employer employee relationship this severs that relationship. many instances of this bill tackles in a constructive way and it tries to build programs to help employers and employees to remain connected the unemployment insurance piece to what the bill is about in the overall argument.

nobody has a problem with the generous unemployment benefits nobody has a problem with the benefits in this bill. they should be generous with the national crisis we are in. but we don't want this piece of the bill to create an incentive for folks to stop working and have their employers push them away when they should try to rally around together through the crisis. . . . . just receiving e working. it should not be some b things i u.s. congress does to create an

incentive where you get paid more by not working then you do when working. that is pro- recovery legislation that tries to keep it humming and helps keep us together, 325 million americans to beat this thing. we should vote for workers and vote for her recovery and votes to beat this thing and come out stronger on the other side. >> mr. president. >> the senator from illinois. >> i'd like to address this issue to address where we are today and how we reached this point. senator graham across the aisle a week or so ago perhaps started talking about unemployment insurance and his goals with unemployment insurance. it sounded consistent with the language i heard on our own side of the aisle, our own caucus to reduce the unemployment insurance as a way to make sure people are able to really weather the storm when it came tobe the public health crisis we face. a number of people who were

filing for unemployment has gone up dramatically. 2 million new unemployment claims filed last week, compared to 218,000 nationwide and previously is. so we know that the number of people who've lost their jobs, leadoff, for love, fired is growing in a fashion we've never seen before. i've seen it reported in my state and i'm sure you've seen the same. what gets down to the bottom line and i ask my colleagues to bear with me for a minute. what they were describing is what wwhat they initially setup, the representatives in the united states. i was in one of the task force is in the senate finance committee, and i sat there as a representative for the department of labor they said senators, you don't understand 550 different state's computer systems when it comes to unemployment benefits. we can tell you point blank only

a few can do what you want to achieve. they tell us it will take months to reprogram the computers to make a simple calculation or what appears to be a simple calculation that says you never get paid more than you were making on the job. that was the reality. we didn't make that up. this wasn't a democratic dream to idea, this was thdot idea, tp administration department of labor telling us when they look at the state department of labor they couldn't achieve what you want to achieve with your amendment. in other words, if you go ourward and you are successful, i don't believe you will be, but if you are successful, woul whae would end up with is basically a deadlock. no increase in unemployment insurance. let me tell you beyond this admin is a problem, which wasn't our creation, it was identified by the trump administration, john did this, there are two or three more things i want to say at the bottom line. first, we are determined to make sure workers compelle come out s

terrible experience they are going through. the notion they would come out better is not unique to the democratic side of they aisle. the cash payment proposed by the trump administration, 1200 per adult and 500 per child for some will be a benefit and may even be a small but important windfall that comes their way, so be it. working families across america would end up with a cash payment from the administration and i don't object at all but the democrats have saithat thedemocs one and done. that a is in air drop of cash to people. what about the next week at the next month. that's why we brought a unemployment insurance. the $600 figure we came up with was an attempt to make sure everyone was for the end of the day. i would concede your point. some workers, sometime in the endco of comin up coming up ahee of this calculation of $600 a

week. they may come out ahead. i'm not going to say i feel badly about that, i don't at all when less than half of the people in america have $40 $400o savings, the notion we might end up giving people another 1,000 or $2,000 at the end of formal is, to me that isn't something that we ought to be ashamed of or run away from. that is a possibility. and it may have been. support that just as i supported the trumpas i administration cash payment to the same family. they are going through tough times and they have for a long time. how many of us have given speeches on the floor of income inequality in america and the hardest working people still unable to make it paycheck to paycheck and week to week. let's give a hand if not apologize. we are standing with the workers and families and i think you want to as well. the way you want to calculate if we are told cannot be done and cannot be done in a fashion that brings relief to the families when they need it right now.

>> with the gentleman yield. >> i will when i finish but i want to make this point as i can. this is not a windfall. let's assume $600 a week at the calculation would make it 450 a week or so times 1, sometimes 1r this for months, how much does that come out two, $2,400? is that going to mean someone becomes lazy and won't go back to work? i don't think so. i think a lot of people will use the money and needed h the money and are given a helping hand and we'll put it right back in the economy. that is what this is about 20 families can keethefamilies can, pay their utility bills, put food on the table and put money back into the economy. that is what we are trying to achieve. if we err on giving the hard-working family an extra $2,000 because of the approach, so be it. no apologies.

we didn't design the system. we were told we had to work with in the design, we tried to do that and we think that 600 a week is a reasonable way to do that and i will yield to s the question. >> 600 a week if i do the math quickly times 16 is 9600 on top of thedi additional 1200 per person or 2400 per family, that's an important number we should consider. i think that you hit on the point we should all be willing to agree upon that the system of unemployment throughout the country, and perhaps to working on antiquated equipment that we need to be updated so that we can in fact keep people hold during the unemployment. i would love for us to work in a bipartisan fashion to figure out efe department of labor and how to fix the problems with those folks who deserve the benefits get all that they deserve that we actually have a system that is nimble enough for us to meets theg need state-by-state without exceeding the need to so that when we are in the position

again and looking at phase four and phase five we are not asking for a conversation about systems that are so antiquated or perhaps even obsoletes that we are doing something that was unintended. i'm not suggesting we can get tonight or we can get that done over the next few months. i am however concluding we should work to get it done. >> i don't disagree with my friend from south carolina at all. i agree completely. we are in the midst of a national emergency. that's not my announcement, its announcement of president trump. when you look at the people filing for unemployment and the hardships that they are facing a come of the lifestyles they tend to live to try to comply with shelter in these and all the rules going on, the number of people filing the unemployment insurance claims, they tell us the reality of the situation. the notion, $9,600 times three,

three times for months, basically comes out to $30,000 a year roughly.ed that is with a $600 as calculated to meet on an annual basis. so i'm a four-month basis if we end up giving people an extra thousand or 2,000, it is not inconsistent with what the trump administration says they want to do with their cash payment. in the meantime come if we are going to move forward and i hope this comes to an end quickly, if we move forward into a new phase, phase four or five, whatever it is, let's work together to upgrade the system to make them work the way we want them to work. but then in the meantime, wouldn't we want to air on the side of standing with families and their employees and to do so in this first effort? and i think it is a reasonably thoughtful way to do it. >> happy to answer that question if you would yield. >> thank you, sir. i would say that on both sides of the isle, we are both trying to get to the place where we are in fact keeping the average

class people hold as we ponder and discuss the amendments -- >> of course. >> my final thought is my goal wasn't to come down here and have a disagreement come as much as it is to illuminate a very important part of the problem that is throughout the country as we tackle these issues in the future, more folks on both sides the aisle will have a greater confidence in getting these give resources to the states so that people can be whole. want to say. >> no disagreement they would say to my friend from south souh carolina and disagreement but the department of labor says we cannot do that at this moment coming at this moment when people are hurting so badly, when they lost their jobs, for a low, they are laid off and worry about paying their bills, the trump administration says we will send a cash payment, we say and i hope it is a bipartisan,

we are with you. it isn't going to end with a cash payment. we are going to make sure the unemployment insurance benefits are going to keep you and your family together and if by chance you come out a little bit ahead in the process with a cash payment or the calculation of the formula, so be it. at this moment in history facing this national emergency, we would rather err on the side of you being able to pay your bills and keeping your family together. the future needs we can discuss and debate and see what to do with the state systems. but for the time being, no apologies. 600 a week from where i stand is exactly what democrats are committed to. i hope republicans as well. because our belief is this is the moment we need to stand with these workers. i might say i support rubio in efforts to help small businesses. i think that is the right thing to do. by partisans from the start coming in really without much controversy. if we ask any of the businesses to produce net worth statements

before they receive the benefits, no. we are not doing that. this is an extraordinary moment, and we may do something different if we think about long-term policy, but for the medi immediate poli, let us do the right thing and air on the site is helping working families out off work. that's why i would oppose the amendment. if it's going to be offered by the center of nebraska and i came to the floor to explain how we reached this point, and i hope that others will consider my point of view. i will yiel would yield the flo. >> i would just say very briefly that i appreciate there comments from the senator from illinois explaining his position. it seems to me that from where he started, he is supporting the amendment and we should figure out what the they need to do toh on the department of labor to lidernizentni the system. but i just want to say in public something that has been negotiated for the last eight or nine hours and we haven't been able to get a conversation on that side of the aisle, which

are you are absolutely right that the department of labor says there are massive system problems in the state. and so given that we are entering a recession at this moment, and we are going to have lots and lots of americans that call on the state departments of an insurance benefits, it is a substantial right now. substantial right now. and so i would just say, taking you in good faith that you would like to upgrade their systems so that we can do this thing which adoesn't accidentally stimulate unemployment by disincentives facing work. i've been trying all afternoon to get that side of the aisle to say maybe we can't get this solved by day on day one of the unemployment insurance benefits, but by age or nine maybe we should get to a place where the department ofhe labor has the resources to help the state department of unemployment insurance deal with this. so i will follow-up with you because i'd like to work on trying to update their systems. i have one more thing to say that they would like to get in a word, go ahead. >> the nation of the question is

procedural. >> the presiding officer is liberalce on these things. >> this is turning out to be a debate on the floor of the senate. it's almost historic. but i would just say this, we disagree on one basic premise. i don't believe giving people $1,200, as the president suggested, for each adult or as they ended up with a net gain out of our approach of $2,000 but we have now turned them into lazy people who will not go back to work and wait for the next government check. these are not the people i know are not the people you know. by and large these are hard-working people with an additional thousand dollars they may be able to buy the refrigerator or be able to get their car fixed. will be able to get dental work done. i don't think paying them a little extra is going to change their lifestyle and attitude towards hard work. >> that we were agreeing for a while and it's important to underscore that your math isn't real.. the reality is in lots and lots of states inhe the country where people are earning 12 or 13 or

14 or $15 an hour right now, the unemployment option they will be offered is going to be more like 24 or $25 an hour. we are not talking about a thousand dollars over the months. we are talking cases google might have an annual average wage of 30,000 unemployment of a thousand a week which is 50,000 eannualized, so your math is not real. the reality is it is in 600 total it is 600 on top of what the unemployment benefits already were in that state. so, there are lots of people who are struggling to work hard, to love their neighbor. we had a lot of help and advice that they make $16 an hour, but as a $30,000 ar year job. their work is employment they ia vocation. there are sick people from diseases right now in nebraska that need the benefit of those home health aide and you told them in this bill, we told them in this bill your work is a little but important, but look

at this. you could make substantially more money if you didn't do the hard thing of trying to figure out what to do with our kids today when schools closed and my sister agreed to help take care of my kids but do i put the burden on her when i don't actually have to go to work and i can get substantially more money by going on the unemployment insurance program that is a disincentiveis to wori don't think you believe in, i know i don't believe in it and my state doesn't. it's not republican versus democrat. it's an american issue. wewe believe in workers and work and we don't believe governments should come in and say it is better off being o to the non- r than a worker. you can make more money than k.rking. we are not talking about the people that suffered layoffs. we are talking about a system that will incentivize more unemployment next week and that is a mistake and we could and i ould be doing better than that. i know the senator from texas has been trying to get in so i will yield the floor.

>> thank you, mr. president. >> the senator from texas. >> this bill was going to pass overwhelmingly, if they pass unanimously that this would make it substantially better. i expect we will see a partyline vote and that is unfortunate because the consequence of the system, the unemployment insurance system and the bill of rights now is that we are going ton substantially this incentivize work and it's going to hurt workers, it's going to hurt small businesses. let me give you a concrete example. in texas right now the maximum unemployment insurance is $521 a week. after this bill passes, there will rise from 521 a week to $1,121 a week. that is nearly committed is just over $58,000 a year. that means in the state of texas, we are going to be paying people, offering them basically $28 an hour not to work. listen to every one of us recognize people are hurting.

the problem is the incentive. we are creating an incentive that will hurt small businesses. if you have a waiter or waitress to lost her job for a few weeks and they are on unemployment making 25, 26, 27 or $28 an hour, suddenly the prospect of going back to the child and seeing the money they are making going down substantially, but seem to attractive. suddenly the restaurant owner trying to make the business work can't attract the workers back and that is bad for everyone. incentives matter. we want people to work. i would ask the senator from illinois, you said the problem implementing the principle that we shouldn't pay people more not to work they may make working, use of the problem with was administrative, the department of labor and the state couldn't do it. it. with the senator agree withat te amendment and the party agree with the amendment if it simply have language inserted to the best extent practicable?

so, acknowledging that it may not be practicable, but would you agree with the principle that in implementing the scum of the statthis, thestate and depar should try to make sure we are not paying people more months to work then they would make if they were working? >> is that a question directed to me? >> i will yield to the senator from illinois. s >> let me say we are talking about people who did voluntarily leave their jobs. these people did not voluntarily leave their jobs. they were terminated, they were laid off, they were for furlough. it was a system hurt by the national emergency. second, if they are airing on the siderring onthe side of giv, hard-working families and additional thousand dollars a month, a thousand dollars a month, for goodness sakes i'm not going to apologize for a moment. these people are living paycheck to paycheck in many respects if they are making $15 an hour that

is 30,000 a year. for us to say they will end up with a thousand dollars now they will never go back g to work, those people. i don't believe that. and we've been contacted in this world of social media and such by nurses who say you think we are going to quit our jobs so that we can take on the -unemployment benefits? no, we go to our jobs and do what we have to do it at the amount of money -- >> if i could reclaim my time. >> i think the senator from texas but iye would say yes in this respect i agree. take a look at the state systems of paying unemployment benefits. we are told by the department of labor many of them are way behind the modern technology and cacannot need what you stated is the goal here. if we want to work toward the goal of improving the state systems, as senator scott said earlier, you will join that effort, but let's not apologize for sending an extra thousand dollars. and p one last point, we are asking people to stay home.

we are asking them to help us defeat the virus by not working. stay with your family. so, one of the areas if there's there isa good unemployment bent coming in at that they can keep their family together while they obeyed the directive at least from the government, state and federal. >> been scoring teams are going to him, staying at home is going to endoc but the policy favoredy democratic senators, is going to be an incentive that's going to end up with more people unemployed. let's say you were a restaurant owner and if you keep your employees through a small business loan you can pay them say $10 or 11 or $15 an hour, whatever you do pay that if you let them go, they can go on unemployment and make a whole lot more. you b don't think there will bea lot of small business owners that have employees say wait a second, i can make more money? is a bad incentive. we want to create incentives -- i agree people want to work with the government can miss that if we make it more profitable.

i would much rather -- the checks they are sending, 1200 person, it is than $1,200 if you do this conduct. we won't incentives to bring people back to work so the small businessesry that are closing their doors every day don't stay closed. they opened up again and have on the opportunity again and as they progress incentive, to pay people more not to work thann to work, yes we should help them, but we shouldn't track than -- >> senator yield for a question. as i'm sure you are aware, this is a four month program. we are not offering this people the benefit indefinitely. have to renewt it. but to say that i'm going to give up returning to the place i worked forever where i was laid off because they closed the restaurant, because of a four-month program, i don't think so. i think people are more loyal to the workplace if they are t

treated fairly and if we give an additional thousand dollar a month at the end of the day i think it is the right thing to do. >> the incentives matter. and we don't want to delay the recovery from the crisis by four months. hopefully wet stop this global pandemic and we started soon. you don't know how soon that will be, i don't know, and one of the benefits of the bill as they are floating more resources than we should be into the testing and preventive and defensive leaders, there's a lot we need to do to stop the pandemic. but when it ends, and it will end, we will get through this and we want people to go back to work. not four months from now but as soon as they are able to go back to work on and that's what our economy to be strong. i would note again, i posed a question to the senator of illinois would she take a mummification that acknowledged the administrative problems but said that this is the principle we should follow that you shouldn't be paid more now to work then you are paid to work

into the senator from illinois didn't answer that. >> yield for a question. does the senator supported the trump administration cash payment to the families that comes whether they work or not? >> i do. i'm going to vote for it but it doesn't create an - incentive because this is where many of the democratic party don't understand theve incentives of trapping people out of work. incentives are future, sending these checks right now if you make $75,000 or less, you will get a check in the mail the next couple of weeks andel that his health and relief but it doesn't create an incentive tomorrow. but i don't want his people to be sitting there making a choice. make a rational choice. if you are sitting there saying i can make a lot more money staying at home with my kids and not working then if i go back to the job. that's not a rational decision if you are making me $28 an hour to stay at home. we are causing the problem i ths we are incentivizing people not

to work. work. if it isn't ultimately in their interest with the economy's interest. this is hurting the workers to paye them more not to work then they would make if they were working. >> just to see this, i don't think president comes cash payment for an additional thousand dollars a month or whatever it is under the unemployment benefit is going to make a work are lazy and the government dependent.ot these are not the people i know. these are people who get up and work hard every day. if they get an extra helping hand out of this, so be it. do with the health crisis and t help familis get through it. that's where we start on this side of the aisle. we may talk a about some in the future and approach it a little differently, but i don't think it makes them lazy to receive the cash payment or an extra payment from this unemployment benefit. >> so with respect, the senator from illinois is suggesting this is somehow some negative moral judgment that it makes them lazy.

it's exactly the contrary. i'm saying people behave according to rational incentives. av don't want to -- with, our girls are 11 and eight at home. we have incentives all the time, positive and negative, incentives work. we don't want to create a system where someone being perfectly rational and reasonable size i can make a lot more money for my families paying home than i can go into work. if i go to work my family makes less money. it's not a question of being lazy. it is a question of the government putting me in the position where if i want to care for my kids i can do it better by staying home, that is foolish tuand unfortunately is the position right now of what we expect to be the democratic senators will vote no on this. that is a badic policy for the workers and small businesses. it's a bad policy for the economy. we should support jobs, not

paying people not to work. a safety net, yes, relief, yes, but don't create incentives that make the problem worse and that is what the democratic policy would do. i yield the floor. >> the senator from delaware spoke first. >> thank you. thanks very much. to my colleagues, the senator from nebraska and south carolina note that i have great affection and respect for them. i used to be a treasurer and i was elected at the tender age of 29, and the worst credit rating in the country we were dead last. couldn't balance the budget to save our soul so we had pretty much no money in the unemployment insurance fund. over time, w we straighten out r finances and elected someone as our governor that will stretch over for a while, democratic republican legislative switch

and we learned how to work together. we called it the delaware way. later on i would get to be governor, succeed mike castle was his successor but i was active in the national governors association and even let me be chairman for a while. in the welfare reform when i was a member of the national governors association. i was raised in a coal mining town in west virginia. we parents off much money, deep faith, hard work. my dad used to say to my sister and me i don't care if you have to work three jobs to pay your bills, work three jobs. that's the way that i was raised. and i suspect most of usct here were raised that way, strong work ethic. when i was in the a democratic

welfare reform, i used to see people ought to be better off working then they are on welfare. bill clinton said that often. i believe that, and the welfare system is people are actually better off staying home than they were working and it's still the same principle we are talking about here. every state has its own unemployment insurance fund. we have one in delaware and there's one in nebraska, one in texas, one in illinois. they are different. in the different benefits are calculated indifference they. and in delaware -- i just got off the phone with a fellow that used to be a member of my team when i was early in my time and he's now the secretary of labor. i said mr. secretary, what do we pay people in delaware on unemployment insurance, what is the replacement rate and he said between 25 and 50% of what people were earning. o

and he said there's a $400 cap per month, excuse me, per week. 400we per week on the benefits that we will pay anybody regardless of what they were making. $400 a week. .. >> if you add the numbers, i am not sure we end up with $24 per hour. not in delaware. rise secretary the number that

we are looking at like $13 an hour in delaware after you add it all in as opposed to 24. we will go back and do our math. >> will you yield? >> i don't think any of us think this is the most productive way to spend our time in the senate $400 a week and you add $600 is $1000 a week with a 40 hour a week is $23 an hour how do you explain that to 16 hours or $15 an hour? and they said this is a program but then we never spend any time with unemployment insurance

programs that is not how it works how it actually works is once you create the incentive to work employers regularly work with employees to say you should recognize this is better for you if you can capitalize on it and that's what happens. i will give the floor back. >> i will reengage. thank you for the mass. the other point was how hard would it be to administer? is thatto something we could do weeks or months? this wouldn't be easy administratively anxious to get the benefit out the door in a hurry this would not be easy. keep that in mind. one of the people that i talked to last week trying to figure out the legislative package number three should be

they told me about the three tees. timely, targeted, and temporary. those are the three that they talked about timely means making sure we figure out the right benefit and in a timely way. in the secretary of labor if you cannot incorporate what you are doing at the state level and do it in a timely way. if we could do that we would have a fair amount of bipartisan support we just don't know how long that delay would be. ted kennedy used to sit behind me when i first came to the senate. we served in the house together. i didn't know ted kennedy.

i said i don't know you very well but i was going to meet to have a cup of coffee and i asked if i could have a cup of coffee with him he said come to my hideaway and we will have lunch together. two weeks later we had lunch together. some of you have been there. i said how is it so many republicans the most liberal democrat to be the lead cosponsor? he said i am always willing to compromise on policy never willing to compromise on principle so when people are employed and they need help we want to help in a timely way. >> with the senator yield?

>> let me finish my thought. >> in a timely way. im just concerned the idea to deal with this in a timely way will be diminished but we honestly don't know. >> a question for the senator. you said you are concerned about implementation and it may not be timely at the state level to implement this but just prior to coming to the floor i suggested a possible amendment to the senator of nebraska's amendment to add to the best extent possible so it doesn't slow the program down but acknowledges both the department of labor and state should endeavor to implement this in a way that ensures people are paidre more.

the does put a qualifier you suggested there could be a bipartisan agreement with the senator from delaware. >> i would be happy to discuss that with you online. >> i yield. >> thank you mr. president the american people have shown resilience and great challenges from civil wars international conflicts and pandemics, we have face these challenges united and with resolve. unlike those challenges of the past the pandemic is a crisis that together we can and will overcome with covid-19 each day to protect the health and the safety of michiganders and people across the nation, no doubt we are facing the unprecedented

public health emergency and economic crisis at the same time. families in michigan and americans across the country for their health and safety worry if they can make ends meet during this emergency. quickly we are providing relief for struggling families and healthcare a providers and even as we move with the urgency this difficult time demands to make sure it's done right getting the right help to the people who need it the most we must act aggressively and do everything we can to provide relief famy. to those in michigan and across the country facinger the unprecedented health and financial challenge workers in my home state of michigan are forced to stay home due to coronavirus need not worry if

they will pay their bills or put food on the table. that is why offer legislation included in the package before the senate to expand unemployment assistance. we've never had unemployment benefits in response to the crisis but we have never seen an emergency on the scale of what we are seeing right now. workers are not receiving a paycheck or have been laid off due to coronavirus. that's why to have the unemployment compensation program to have benefits to people who are unable to workic. during the pandemic and expand unemployment benefits to workers who have exhausted the state unemployment benefits and to those who don't usually qualify including small business owners workers, independent contractor contractors, seasonal workers and people who have recently started a new job.

and those with extended unemployment insurance were hard-working families could have some certainty they could stay afloatt financially during the crisis that will last a while. small business has been hit especially hard summer at risk to close their doors or lay off employees they are the backbone of the economy and need support now more thanr. ever. that's why worked with my colleagues to craft legislation for funding available for small business loans and as a result it increases the funding for the popular and successful sba small business loans $350 million. also additional funding 240 million for small business development centers to increase the funding for minority business owners as well. these will go a long way to

helpee small businesses pay rent to keep their lights on. also includes significantly more funding going to hospitals and healthcare system to ensure the overstretched hospitals make up for lost revenue to keep their doors open and make payroll for the dedicated nurses and doctors and healthcare professionals on the frontlines fading on - - fighting day in and day out working closely with hospitals and healthcare providers in michigan and they cannot express how critical this funding is to continue providing care and comfort during this pandemic to have the resources and supplies and the equipment they need to protect themselves and their patients from coronavirus. the ranking member homeland security with chairman ron johnson to ensure that this has strong oversight provisions in place ensure

that the funds we are authorizing go to the peopl people, small businesses and healthcare providers that need them the most. the oversight provision has a pandemic response accountability committee made up of agency watchdogs charged to investigate the coronavirus response efforts and america's hard earned tax dollars to address the serious crisis and also to audit where the funds are going to keep congress and the american people up toea date and then from the 2009 recovery act during the great recessions working with my republican chairman it is still an important step to address the crisis once we

thaddress the serious public health threat and the resulting economic crisis as well. and with our colleagues in a bipartisan manner to assure michigan communities and families have the resources and support they desperatelyo need will continue to work close with the michigan governor and local leaders and public health experts and national security officials. and then to do our part working together to prevent the spread of the pandemic to protect public health and address this economic crisis. and then we will get through this and come out stronger on the other side. i yield the floor.

>> the senator from vermont. >> let me be very honest and tell you there is as much in this bill that we have not yet seen. and i am especially concerned the administration with 801 - - with billion dollars any way they want any corporation they want with virtually no strings attached. and with the income inequality they do not want policies them to receive loans or grants in the stock buybacks to enrich stockholders and provide

dividends nor compensation benefits of the already ceo. but for us to use our taxpayer dollars to protect the working families of this country and the middle class and 50 percent of the people living paycheck to paycheck. as of tonight half of the people in this country the richest country in the world are living paycheck to paycheck. and they wake up in the morning and say bheck to make 1r $1314 an hour. andbt pay the student debt or credit card debt they have

said now this bill worked on .extensively the last few days. and then to see the largest expansion of unemployment benefits in history. and more importantly and have a do with republican attacks on workers 50 percent of american workers today are eligible for unemployment benefits so what this says srightly so is that in the midst of this crisis some

people nobody knows some are estimating by next quarter unemployment could be 20 or 30 percent but this bill does r say if you're eligible you will still get compensation. many of the waitresses and waiter many so-called independent contractors they will be eligible for the extended unemployment benefits and what this bill does if it says we are in the midst of a horrific crisis so we will add another $600 a week. and nowbl i find making $12 an

hour could end up with a paycheck performance more than they received last week. oh my god. and that unprecedented economic crisis. with the original unemployment check they could go for four months. oh my word. how absurd and wrong is that? and with no court is not a

problem but when it comes in the midst of a terrible crisis and more money than they previously made. and i know many that objected to it because poor people are here they don't deserve it they don't eat they don't go to the doctor will now everybody will get the $1200 so the need to punish the poor working people you haven't change minimum b wage and ten years.

the cuts program after program after program but now for four months it is a few bucks more than they would otherwise so this amendment that is coming up i don't think it will go far and i will introduce ,an amendment to deal with the corporate welfare of $500 billion of corporate welfare that is a very serious problem but i don't think people get the 60 votes and that will be the end of it. this bill also includes $250 billion for $500 a kid i believe in the unprecedented crisis we should make this a monthly benefit notd one-time benefit depending on what

happens that i expect very much this congress will be reconvening it will be superseded by coronavirus for. it does include the check for adults $500 for kids that will help in the short term. as many of you know uk, denmark, other countrie countries, the approach they ye taking which makes sense to me is to say to employers if you keep your workers on the job, we will pay and uk pays 80 percent of their salary that is the direction we should have gone.

and then to have 367 billion and those loans could be forgivenan if the small businesses don't o lay off workers. for a variety of reasons that's the thing to do. and to stabilize the economy by telling workers that they will have their jobs when they come back when this is over and in the meantime they will have mall more are most of their income providing $150 billion and that they are hurting in the midst of this a lot of that's will fall on local and state

government. so in the best of times it requires an enormous amount of work for the federal state and local government. how do you get all these checks out? how do you deal with the small businesses applying for these loans? it becomesic even more difficult when those that are not coming into work because of the coronavirus if anyone thinks just passing this bill tomorrow then we are terribly mistaken this multifaceted bill will take an enormous amount of work the money goes where it should go. and it does other things as well but to conclude this is

not the bill most americans would have written most are very apprehensive but one quarter will go to large corporations with very little accountability. we have a president of the united states who may up targeting some of this money to the states that he needs to win. it has some good things and issues the other a few bucks more they previously would have earned. >> the senator from alaska.o >>. >> and with policy politics and economics the purposes this to a firm work under his

vision i don't know where he thinks those who stock shells and drive trucks would come from because they made an argument about government subsidies on a permanent basis higher than the wages of all those jobs.i but i would like to praise him. two things. the politicians don't say if they vote for something it is utopian and do everything right and then they say is the worst thing written and then senator sanders just said this bill has a lot in it. tiit is big and clunky in the middle of a national emergency. thalso believe it is clunky b and stinky there are some that is good and earned a necessary important some of it is bad it will not be implemented very effectively. i appreciate his candor to

admit it is a crap sandwich. and you say something totally opposed but i appreciate the honesty andho commitment. the 1200-dollar monthly payment it would be monthly. is that right? >> not permanent but during the crisis. yes. >> that is helpful clarification. i thought you are arguing for ra14 grand. i appreciate the fact you believe a lot of things very differently. but hely argues forcefully for his physician.be was a benefit for more people

and the senator from vermont to help those physicians are voted down again and again but i appreciate the way he argues for his position. >> so with this bill to supercharge unemployment sure insurance right now. and those senate democrats have negotiate with the trump administration secretary may nguyen and senator grassley. this provision would end western civilization. with unemployment benefits and the priorities the senate just

passed and we have been fighting improvements ofoy unemployment and in our review it is the key to getting help. >> the senator from oregon. please use your microphone. >> thank you. supercharging unemployment has longse been something senate democrats. and where it is needed most when you see the unemployment claim numbers tomorrow if the numbers are accurate of the unemployment crisis. and i believe anybody should fall into destitution as a

result of this pandemic. i obviously disagree with my colleagues by oppose this strongly to improve unemployment. i just want to make a few key points and third with an argument that just about knocked to the wind out of me. the idea that nurses will quit their jobs as a result of this legislation. mr. president, nurses will not quit their job to get unemployment benefits. because that is not how it works. by now everyone has seen the herculean efforts of our nurses fighting the pandemic a

true professional from portland oregon to portland maine they are on the front line of the fight putting themselves in harm's way. south carolina or oregon or anywhere else. and at the suggestion of my colleagues from nebraska and for those that are suffering because of the coronavirus. and then to raise this objection now and the ranking democrats of the finance committee. when a watched the press conference and then called him about it.

the proposal has been out there for days. senators have known about it the whole time. is not a drafting error or a last-minute surprise the senator from nebraska in effect wants to drop the part of the bill i enjoyed working with you on the committee but the senator from the basket wants to drop was part of the bill that republican leader mcconnell introduced on saturday. he introduced it on saturday because senate democrats insisted on it being part of the package in the secretary said this afternoon on national television republicans agreed.

but first also talk about why this is so needed with this economic wrecking ball. through these horrendous times the old unemployment rules cover onlyy one third or half of their lost wages. that's it and then to put food on the table with that. before the crisis, the federal reserve found nearly half of americans would not have been able to come up with $400 cash to cover cash in the emergency. o millions of americans are walking on the economic tight

brope and that was before the fpandemic. that is why we on our side are so appreciative of the work of senator peters and senator menendez to help in the negotiations and we all said we need the improve supercharge benefits to replace lost wages. they shouldn't choose between homelessness or bankruptcy because of irish shut down our economy and cost them their jobs. for any work or anywhere and while it is shuttered as the economy the congress has a responsibility to make sure america comes out otherwise millions will slowly struggle

to recover and many might not make it if the senate doesn't move to help them now. now. the panic that they feel is already too much, the least we can do is have their back when it comes to surviving this economic crisis. now all my colleagues now we are on the third bill in the fight against the virus. mitch mcconnell's third version of the bill did virtually nothing. i read it carefully 247 pages from eight lines of text, not a pages that only dealt with the filing for unemployment

now that bill had a lot of corporate goodies. one is a slush fund for big corporations. but just a few measly lines for people hurting. workers hurting. workers losing their jobs. senate democrats fought for and one changes to make up thisr robust, expanded, supercharge program of unemployment insurance. with these punishing times americans will need more coverage than they would otherwise get from unemployment insurance.oy the benefits will not cover the time this crisis will last.

and then to modernize the unemployment insurance program because it really hasn't changed much in 1932. and the unemployment program has not changed all that much. and with that challenge the country faces right now. and what system seems good enough for independent contractors, self-employed and freelancers. they are the face of the modern economy not the face they were thinking about in 1932. senate democrats led the

efforts that at one point in negotiation we could get bipartisan support. knows that have had their hours slashed restaurants, gyms, all of those people who are suffering because their jobs and businesses we are going to bat for them. with millions and millions of americans. the old unemployment insurance system was not working so senate democrats come together and with the self-employed and freelancers. and not only will we help them

but we have developed some ideas to have the unemployment compensation system. but why this raises benefits is specifically by $600 per month. i've heard my colleagues in the strenuous objections to amount. the reason it is $600 because laborli secretary after meeting with the senate negotiators myself, senator grassle grassley, secretary amnuchin, senator menendez, to work with us and then after

meeting with the negotiators left us with no other way to get benefits to workers quickly. to say the states have no other way to get the benefits to workers in time. we needed a simple solution. i know my colleagues in the senate and those that are sponsoring this proposal unravel what senate democrats did with the trumpch anadministration may not believe me, but i want to share the words of secretary mnuchin himself on why we were focused on making sure that workers

and i will give a quotation most of these have technology that is 30 years old or older. we have the ability to customize this with much more specific, we would have. this is the only way we could ensure states could get some money out quickly and in a fair way so we use $600 across the board. i don't think it will create incentive. most americans want to keep their jobs.

that is what secretary mnuchin said today and defending the language that is in the bill that in effect is the fastest and simplest way for workers to getbe benefits and why we disagree so strongly with the amendment from the senator from nebraska to unravel that are protested to payment of $600 is the simplest way but as of now it is causing the administrative train wreck. so unemployment claims are expected t to go up two.$5 million in one week. two.5 million that is almost as many jobs from the great recession. it's a single largest rise in

unemployment since that figure began to be tracked so with job losses that is how we make unemployment claims in a single week the countries never faced anything like this it is not normal to try to stimulate the economy in which the government tries to give the economy a shot of adrenaline. this is a time when we face a shutdown of entire sectors of our economy. the congress needs to keep our economy alive. we will not do that by shortchanging workers who are losing jobs or hours. strongly americans want to work.

businesses want to keep employees in the job. americans want the economy and spring back to life once a pandemic is under control. so here is the bottom line of the provision that senate democrats our proposal was not a drafting error on - - error. we did not carve out at the last minute to bring about the end. my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will review what the secretary has to sayrt this afternoon on national television tora support what senate democrats negotiated with him and the administration to join us to

make sure millions and millions of americans. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. i don't wish to delay things i just want to make a couple of comments. i did speak earlier this afternoon about this. is almost an understatement to say americans had its inflection point facing a public health crisis unlike we have seen in any generation. government at state and local and county waiting to respond and react and mitigate the crisis. hospital systems.

the package is a good one. does it do everything? know is a perfect? know. but better than where we were? yes. that should be the conscience of the nation and it is time for us to have reality of the rhetoric. this speaks to reality. even our own governor who has worked so hard, this will give him some tools.

we support the victims of the terrible virus healthcare in front responders in front lines essential workers are keeping the shelves stocked with the families hit during this pandemic. i have been fortunate for almost 58 years i hear the health of what it is the doctors and nurses face a

situation likeou this. mr. president i pray you or i don't have to face with a face on the front lines. we should go forward and pass this bill. i ask with full statement be included in the record. >> without objection. floor i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> mr. president i see the senator from maryland is on the floor. i think he is performing if youan would like to go first. >> i am grateful, thank you but i am happy to have you go first. >> thank you. mr. president all across the country americans are stepping up in response t